The New York Court of Appeals’ 4-3 split decision in The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. D’Agostino Supermarkets, 36 N.Y.3d 69 (2020) called into doubt the predictability of the courts’ treatment of what most considered a rock-solid contractual term: liquidated damages. See Adam Leitman Bailey and Dov Treiman, “An Unsettling Decision for Liquidated Damages in Settlement Agreements,” New York Law Journal (Feb. 16, 2021). The majority found that the liquidated damages clause in a surrender agreement for a commercial lease between two well-counseled sophisticated parties constituted an unenforceable penalty because it resulted in liquidated damages grossly disproportionate to the amount of actual damage (seven times the actual damage). The dissent, focusing on freedom of contract, would have upheld the provision as not violating public policy.
The potential determination that liquidated damages are not necessarily exempt from a “disproportionality” challenge is not the only aspect of liquidated damages that is potentially problematic, especially in the context of construction contracts. As a result, careful attention must be paid to the development and drafting of liquidated damages provisions in operating under New York law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
